Changes

A relatively small fraternity named "Chi Iota Colony," and identified by the court as mostly Jewish, excluded females.  Its reasons included a statement that admitting women might lead to romantic relationships between members, causing "inevitable jealousies and other conflicts."   

A relatively small fraternity named "Chi Iota Colony," and identified by the court as mostly Jewish, excluded females.  Its reasons included a statement that admitting women might lead to romantic relationships between members, causing "inevitable jealousies and other conflicts."   

The fraternity sought official recognition and, when denied that it sued for a court order based on its [[First Amendment]] rights of association.  The trial court agreed, issuing an injunction against the school forcing it to recognize this fraternity.  The school appealed.

The fraternity sought official recognition and, when denied that it sued for a court order based on its [[First Amendment]] rights of association.  The trial court agreed, issuing an injunction requiring the school to recognize this fraternity.  The school appealed.

The [[Second Circuit]] held that the associative rights of the fraternity did not trigger the difficult-to-satisfy strict scrutiny of regulations against it.  Instead, the Court created a new balancing test.  "To determine whether a governmental rule unconstitutionally infringes on an associational freedom, courts balance the strength of the associational interest in resisting governmental interference with the state's justification for the interference."  The Court held that this will require an assessment of:  

The [[Second Circuit]] held that the associative rights of the fraternity did not trigger the difficult-to-satisfy strict scrutiny of regulations against it.  Instead, the Court created a new balancing test.  "To determine whether a governmental rule unconstitutionally infringes on an associational freedom, courts balance the strength of the associational interest in resisting governmental interference with the state's justification for the interference."  The Court held that this will require an assessment of: